City tightens building curbs near streams and wetlands

By JENNIFER LANGSTON, P-I REPORTER

Published
9:00 pm PST, Monday, March 27, 2006

The Seattle City Council passed stricter rules Monday outlining what homeowners and developers can build near ecologically sensitive areas such as streams, wetlands, shorelines and landslide-prone slopes.

Addressing one of the most contentious issues in the state-mandated update of existing rules, the council allowed the city to require developers to "daylight" buried creeks in certain circumstances.

That could only occur when property owners are redeveloping land and if city officials determine the costs of restoring urban streams shunted into underground pipes are in line with the ecological benefits.

Some environmentalists had urged the council to restrict property owners from building over a buried creek in any circumstance. But the Port of Seattle and other maritime businesses complained the existing proposal could impose exorbitant costs and hamstring operations.

Council members concluded the port's fears were unfounded and said the city would be judicious in how it applied the rules.

Councilman Richard Conlin, who worked on the daylighting amendment until it won support from the city's executive branch, said it reflected the values of Seattle residents.

"They care deeply about their streams and creeks, and they would like to take every opportunity we can, where possible, to undo the damage of the past," he said.

The new rules, which passed unanimously and could go into effect as early as May 9, would enlarge development-free buffers and restrict pesticide use around streams and the city's most valuable wetlands.

Some home expansion projects -- such as building a garage or bumping out a kitchen -- might have to be scaled back in sensitive areas. For the first time, property owners on lake or marine shorelines would have to replace trees or ecologically valuable plants removed from within 100 feet of the water's edge.

Councilwoman Jean Godden, whose committee has spent five months refining Mayor Greg Nickels' original proposal, said that with such complicated legislation, it would be impossible to make all parties totally happy.

"While this ordinance does not perfectly address all the issues we face, we're striking a good balance between benefits to the environment and burdens to residents and property owners," she said.